Jay Rockefeller

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. It is a very interesting situation because we have a compromise. It has very broad support. Nobody has come to speak against it. There is a temptation to call for the yeas and nays; we are ready to vote. We could have voted on this already. We voted in the Finance Committee. If we voted on the floor, this is something I think would pass well and easily. It is incredibly important to the States. I will say something about that after I yield back to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I say to the Senator, not a single voice has been raised against it.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is very perplexing, really, because I was noting when the Senator from Nebraska was here, the floor was crowded with Senators on our last votes. Obviously, all of a sudden, the Senate floor was empty when we came to what is the single most important part of the relationship with the Federal Government that States are worried about and that is their Medicaid match. This Senator was a Governor for 8 years. I remember what happened in the early 1980s when we had the recession. I remember what happened in Medicaid and I remember what happened in the public employees insurance. Everything sort of collapsed. And then there is this body up there in Washington that thinks it is so high and mighty that it doesn't need to pay attention to the problems of States. We only pay attention to the problems of the world and the country. This is an example where this was part of the stimulus package and we were dealing with the absolutely most critically important part of whether a child eats, whether a child has medical services, whether a family has medical services, and everybody is silent. I have a very strong feeling that if this were taken to a vote, it would get well over 60 votes. I know the Senator from Illinois is here and so is the Senator from Minnesota. But there is this strange silence, which sounds like a rolling filibuster without voice. I think it is wrong. We are ready to go to a vote. I am going to keep saying that because it is important.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. This amendment is going to be voted on. I notice the presence of the distinguished Senator from Illinois.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I was trying to be courteous and friendly and encourage the Senator to speak, and he will proceed as he does so well.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, for 60 seconds, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, understanding the gravity of the moment, I do not want to leave a very important piece of legislation. Before I say a word, I would like to add Senator Zell Miller as a cosponsor to the amendment and I ask unanimous consent.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as I look at the situation, we have a whole lot of meetings going on around this Capitol--conference committees on trade, conference committees on prescription drugs. We have a generic drug bill. That is the underlying bill here with a prescription drug amendment attached to it. We have a Federal matching Medicaid amendment which I am offering. There is so much going on on health but there is so little that is going on on health, and it perturbs me. Senator Durbin, when he was talking, pointed out the importance of Medicaid to hospitals, nursing homes, and others. It makes it extremely important for me to note that in the State I represent, 80 percent of our hospitals are losing money. They are mostly rural hospitals, and most of them depend upon Medicaid and Medicare in combination, usually at 85, 80, sometimes 75 percent of their total reimbursement of everything that they do. That is the nature of the State I represent. So many others are like that. It is the nature of part of the State that the Presiding Officer represents. So the question of are we doing Medicaid and reimbursing States so they can keep their health facilities open and Medicaid available to their people is a profoundly important matter. But we treat it as if it were not. We are trying our best to come to an agreement on prescription drugs. There is no particular compromise in sight at the moment. We had two votes yesterday. Both failed. The American people ask us: What are you doing about health care for our people? My people ask, What are you doing about health care for our people? What am I to answer? What am I to tell them? I can refer, if I want, to the catastrophic health bill experience of a number of us, where we had a terrific bill that the House turned down three times, the Senate refused to turn down three times. But the point was that we finally had to yield, and there was no catastrophic health care bill. Then we had something called the Pepper Commission where we came up with a very good solution for both long term and acute care, and it went nowhere. It was declared dead on arrival, and those who so declared it were correct. Nothing happened. Then we had the very large health care experience of the early 1990s when everything got very politicized. The result was twofold: One, that we passed nothing on that health care bill; and, two, everybody retreated inside their shells. Nobody seemed to want to take up health care, and health care became something that somehow, either politically or for whatever reason--because it was complex--people did not want to undertake. Senator Jack Danforth and I, and now Senator Frist and I, started something called the alliance for health reform. The whole idea was to get those who did not serve on the Finance Committee more acquainted with the intricacies and difficulties of what is a very difficult problem; that is, all the acronyms and complexities associated with health care. Now there are a lot more people who know a lot more about health care, and we are still not getting anything done. Now we are talking about the Federal matching adjustment for Medicaid to our most vulnerable people, to people to whom, we go to our Jefferson and Jackson Day Dinners, when we appeal and bring out emotion and speak emotionally, and then when we come up here, we do nothing to help them. I put this amendment on the floor with endless cosponsors. I am looking at Susan Collins, a good Republican from Maine, and there she stands, perhaps ready to speak, and she and seven other Republicans are cosponsors of this amendment. Senator Zell Miller just became a cosponsor. So we have, I don't know, 35, 40 sponsors. I come to two conclusions. No 1, I think this amendment is going to pass and that there may be those who are not coming to this floor to speak against it because they do not want to because they know their Governors feel so passionately about it. Whether they be Republican, Democratic, or Independent, Governors are absolutely passionate about passing this amendment. But they cannot do it. We have to do it for them. We are not doing universal health care. We haven't done anything on prescription drugs yet. We have not done a generic drug bill yet. We have not done anything about importation. We passed a bill--the White House said they do not want to implement it--about bringing drugs in from Canada, produced here, at a lower cost. So we are talking, debating, having compromises, having caucuses, and we are not accomplishing anything. Here is an amendment in which we can do something real for the people in our States who need it. They are not just children, but that is a very basic part of it. It is also reimbursement for hospital facilities. It is reimbursement for skilled nursing facilities, for nursing homes. And they need it more than ever because Medicaid is the one program in government, other than the Veterans Administration, which does have prescription drugs. It does have prescription drugs. As the Presiding Officer has said so many times so eloquently as the leader of this fight, the cost of prescription drugs has been going up in a terrifying manner in these last several years. Who bears the brunt of that? Medicaid. Medicaid bears the brunt of it. And here we are trying to do something which the States cannot do for themselves, which we can do for them, which they are unanimously--Republicans, Democrats and Independent--on record unanimously wanting. I stand here on the floor accompanied only by a distinguished Senator from Maine and the distinguished Presiding Officer. I find this perplexing and troubling. Are we risk averse? Have we become risk averse? That is a health care term. Maybe it ought to be a Senate term. Have we become afraid of doing things which require tough votes? As the Senator from Illinois said, this is a very easy process. People put legislation forward, it goes through committees or doesn't go through committees, it comes to the floor, doesn't come to the floor, but if it comes to the floor, then you have a chance to vote on it. If people want to filibuster it, then you can file a cloture motion, you wait 2 days, and you get a vote on it. People have to eventually vote up or down, or else, as the Senator from Illinois said, they should not be in this profession. I conclude with a sense of awe and tremendous anger, I would say to the Presiding Officer. I started out my career in public life--which I never intended to enter and which my parents were not fond of as a career. They were not pleased as I entered it as a career. I went to a little coal mining community in the State of West Virginia which was nothing but people who had no health insurance, who wanted to work but had no job, who wanted to go to school but had no bus. They had one 1-room school through the sixth grade, 1 through 6, lined up row by row, just in a row. They fed me; they took care of me; we worked together; we developed community programs. They had something called the dollar-an-hour program in West Virginia. You went out and you worked and you cleaned up the roads--men for the most part, at that point--and you got $1 an hour. Glory be, you got 8 hours a day. Any health insurance? Of course not. Nobody had health insurance. No one had health insurance. That seared my soul then, and it sears me today, and it sears me as I talk now, as we sit here and avoid a chance to vote on something with which we can immediately help our States and our people. Are we only to legislate on Afghanistan or broad national concepts or are we here to help people? Is there something wrong, in fact, about actually doing something which would help people? Some people say it would because it would cost money. Then why was it they put this in the emergency supplemental? They put the Medicaid match formula in the emergency supplemental because it was considered that important to the country. And now here we are, 9 months later, 10 months later--whatever it is--and we have done absolutely nothing. This Senator is tired of it. This Senator is very pleased to note that, with eight Republican cosponsors and a whole lot of people waiting to vote for this, there is a cloture motion being filled out, and we are going to vote on this, and we are going to show the people of our States that we care about our children and our families, our prescription drug programs, and that we are not risk averse. We are quite capable, yes, of helping people when it comes to health care. We have not shown that very much in recent years. We are going to show it this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Am I correct in understanding that the distinguished Senator raised a point of order?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I say to the Senator from Nevada, I am not sure, but I believe Senators have been here discussing it favorably for 2 to 2\1/ 2\ hours. Not a single Senator has come to the floor opposing this amendment.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, on July 2, 2002, a modern American hero was buried in Arlington National Cemetery. Her name is Ruby Bradley, and she is the most decorated woman ever to serve in the U.S. military. Ruby was an Army nurse stationed in Manila. On September 23, 1943, she was captured by the Japanese Army. During her 3-year imprisonment, she was known as a member of the Angels in Fatigues. This small group of nurses took it upon themselves to care for those within the camp. Ruby assisted in 230 operations and delivered 13 babies while dropping to a weight of just over 80 pounds. She starved herself so the imprisoned children could eat, trusting that she would be able to cling to her own life. On February 3, 1945, her faith paid off in the form of what she described as ``the best Saturday night performance I'll ever see in my life.'' American troops freed those who were being held captive, and Ruby returned to her home in Spencer, WV, to a hero's parade. But Ruby's military journey was not over. Her sacrifice, generosity, and compassion took her to the Korean war, where she again found herself in the midst of grave danger. The Army sent a plane to retrieve Ruby, but she was the last person to board that plane. After running from her ambulance just before it was blown up by enemy bombs, she loaded the sick and wounded. Once again, she returned to Spencer as the honoree of a hero's parade. In 1963, Ruby retired from the Army, having earned 34 medals and citations, including the Legion of Merit and the Bronze Star, in honor of her tenacious devotion to this Nation and all that we stand for. I had the privilege of visiting Ruby in her home 3 years ago and presented her with replacement medals that had been lost over the years. In this short time, it was obvious to me what an inspiration she was to her family and community, and it was obvious why she was honored with the rank of colonel by the Army. Ruby Bradley was a woman whose soul knew no limits. Her heart had room for everyone, and she was not reluctant to assist those around her, no matter their age, race, or condition. Ruby once said, ``I just want to be remembered as an Army nurse.'' Her family can rest assured that she will be remembered as an Army nurse, one of the best this Nation has seen and will ever see. Her courage in the midst of conflict serves as a shining example to those around her and will continue to be a beacon for bravery in the future for West Virginia and for America.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I say to the Presiding Officer, I would like to put a little perspective in what I see at least as the prescription drug aspect of all this, which permeates part of this discussion, although it is not immediately apparent in the debate of this afternoon. We have this historic opportunity to do something real in prescription drugs. We also have the historic opportunity to fail to do it or we have the historic opportunity to do it in such a way that it will make us feel good but will not do anything to help seniors. In other words, that we would pass something which we could say we passed when we went home in August but would not in fact really help seniors in ways that are meaningful, something that I will not have anything to do with, that kind of strategy. I say to the Presiding Officer, who is my good friend over many years, that nowhere is the problem more visible with respect to prescription drugs, and therefore creating a sensible plan that will address the problem of prescription drugs, than in the State I represent where 30 percent of the seniors have no drug coverage at all and 19 percent have very little drug coverage; therefore, basically half are more or less untouched entirely or to a great degree. About a third of rural seniors as opposed to about a fourth of urban seniors--this is a 10 percent difference, but it makes a difference-- pay more than $500 out of pocket each year. So my first overriding concern is the 336,000 seniors in the State of West Virginia. I will yield or sit down to nobody in fighting for them and for a plan which works for them in one of the poorest States in the Nation. The question is, seniors know there are no easy solutions. We talk as if there are, but there are not. We have to be honest with our constituents about that. I know there is an election coming up. So what. A prescription drug bill that passes is a prescription drug bill that lasts for a substantial period of time. We have to do it right. There are a variety of alternative plans. I am not going to be referring to any of them individually, but some of them are a whole lot better than others and people better start thinking about some of the issues involved. I am going to try to raise some of those issues. Providing a real drug benefit to all seniors, a benefit that covers all seniors all the time for all drugs at a price they can afford, that is what we need to do. At the end of the day, to be quite honest with you, seniors are not really enormously moved and do not care tremendously about whether it is a Democratic bill or whether it is a Republican bill, whether it is a White House bill. That may have some short-term advantage, but in terms of the way it affects their lives, which is what I care about, which is why I am here in this body, it doesn't make any difference to them. They don't want to be promised something we cannot actually deliver. There is a lot of talk about that kind of stuff. As seniors consider all the competing prescription drug bills, they need to ask a number of very basic questions. One of the matters which I think people need to focus on is that the most important issue in all this is the delivery mechanism. People say: What is that? It is the core of the whole argument. It needs to be explained. It is a question of, really, who takes the risk? One of the plans we are looking at--that is the way I am going to refer to it, one, then another, et cetera--says that the insurance companies will take the risk. Chip Kahn was President of the Health Insurance Association of America. He says that is like insuring against haircuts. An insurance company is not in the business of taking risk. They can't, and they particularly can't where people are older, sicker, and frailer and are less likely to be able to afford either to join them or to pay what it is that they charge. On the other hand, you can also have a system where you use what you call a government/private partnership, PPMs. That is in another plan. I happen to favor that. They don't have to make a profit. They can set the price on the medicine which is best for the senior. But the business of who takes the risk is really important in all of this. You say: How can you prove that? I will prove it indirectly. Since we do not have this before us, in West Virginia we have one plan on Medicare+Choice. We have Medicare and we have Medicare+Choice. We have Medicare, but we only have one plan that affects one part of the State involved with one university and some counties right around it. It covers 2 percent of the people in the State of West Virginia. That means it does not cover 98 percent. That means 98 percent of the people in West Virginia are not covered at all. They have a cap in their plan of $500 on their drug benefit. That means if you use up your $500, you have a catastrophic something or other, by February, March, April, or May that is it--there is nothing you can do. There is no more expended. You have to pay for it yourself. One good thing, though, that can be said about Medicare+Choice is that, if the plan pulls out, the senior, the Medicare beneficiary, has the option of a fallback position. That is to go back to fee-for- service medicine. That is not included in any of the other plans. I use the word ``other'' in the prescription drug plans that are before us. It is included in one, but it is not included in the others. It is not included in the one from the House. It is not included in one of the several that are wandering around the Senate Finance Committee. If you do not have a fallback position, you can't do anything. That means you are just out of it. The plan decides to pull out and you get nothing. If it is Medicare+Choice, and the plan decides to pull out because they can't make money, because you are poor, you have a lot of people using services, and at least, therefore, you have the fallback position and that is, you can go back to fee-for-service medicine. It is an extremely important aspect of all of this. So the question that seniors ought to ask and we ought to ask ourselves is, first, does the final plan that we vote on cover all seniors? Does it cover all seniors? Medicare does; not prescription drugs but in other things it does. Does it cover all seniors, as prescription drugs should? All seniors need to know that they won't be left out of the prescription drug bill just because they come from a State that has a lot of rural area where the cost of providing services is much higher. The plan I support covers all seniors in every State. Seniors can get their drugs through their local pharmacy, just as they do now. There is no difference. The government and the private sector would be working together to make sure all seniors are covered just like Medicare today. That makes sense to me. The other plans say that every senior is ``eligible'' for coverage. But, in fact, many seniors won't get any benefit at all under these other plans. That is because those plans leave up to private insurers the decision where and when and to whom they will offer coverage. The experience of rural areas--and certainly in my State--is the plans and insurance companies have said they want to have nothing to do with ensuring prescription drug benefits. They made it very plain. The other plans pretend they haven't said that and go ahead and include them. Private insurers are focused on profits. ``Profits'' is not a dirty word. But it becomes an important word when you are talking about the distribution and accessibility and the affordability of prescription drugs. We know from experience that the insurance companies will simply not voluntarily ensure seniors in parts of the State of Minnesota. They will in others but they won't in other parts. Or insurance companies will have the ability to have certain kinds of benefits in these kinds of areas, and other kinds of benefits in other kinds of areas. In other words, nothing is defined, and nothing is consistent that people can really count on. That is really wrong in prescription drugs. If we pass a bill that does that, that is wrong. That is the wrong thing to do to seniors. We need to think about that. Seniors need to be on the alert for exactly that kind of behavior. Second, does the final plan cover all seniors all the time? Seniors need a benefit that is universal. They do not know when they are going to get sick or have a catastrophic incident. They have to know that it is going to be there for them all the time. They need benefits that help them 365 days a year. The plan I support covers all seniors, all year, without a gap in benefits, and with no gaps in coverage. Other plans stop after a senior's drug costs exceed $2,000, and even if it happens to be in the first month of the year, or gives seniors no coverage at all for costs between $2,000 and $3,700. That is called a doughnut. It is a very serious problem, and a very real problem. When you say people do not know what you are talking about necessarily out there, even in here a doughnut is a bad thing to do. When you say that you are stop-loss at $2,000 through $3,700, you have to pay everything in between, that is a wrong policy. Some of the other plans have it. The House plans have that. One of the plans floating around in the Senate Finance Committee has that. It is wrong. Third, does the final plan cover all seniors all the time for all drugs? That is the third question seniors need to ask us and that we need to be asking ourselves as we evaluate what we are going to do, if we are going to do something. Seniors want to make decisions about which drugs are taken on advice of their doctor. They don't want to have it done on the advice of their insurance companies. We have heard about that for years--doctors having to dial insurance companies to get permission to do something which they know they have to do. They resent it. They are denied. Nobody can do anything about it. Doctors and patients should make key health decisions. I think that is a moral compass for how we look at a prescription drug bill. Under the plan I support, seniors have a guaranteed benefit. Seniors and their doctors will decide which medicines are best for them to take, and they will take those medicines. The other plans, as I say, talk about a standard benefit--the beauty of words in the Congress. But the fact is they too often leave it up to the insurance companies to decide which drugs will be covered. And that is not a guaranteed benefit for all drugs. We went through this in the Medicare Commission for a year. It was a question about do you have a defined benefit? Do you have an actuarial? People ask, What does actuarial mean? The point is that in one you get a benefit for all seniors all across America, and in others you get a certain amount of money. When the money runs out, you are on your own. It is cruel. It is cruel. It is wrong. But it is in two of the three main plans that we are considering on prescription drugs, and people need to know about it. Four, does the final plan cover all seniors all the time for all drugs at a price which they can afford? None of these questions strike me as unreasonable, if we are doing something as stark as this. We have been talking about this for 5 years. I have sat for the last 4 years in sometimes up to three meetings a day in Finance Committee meetings and with staff trying to discuss all of these things, and here we are again. That is fine, if we produce a decent product. I don't care. The senior Senator from Massachusetts has a theory that sometimes things take 10 or 12 years to pass. If you have to do that for prescription drugs, that is a bad thing because, in the meantime, a lot of people are dying and suffering needlessly. But the plan I support on this matter of affordability is the only one with the guaranteed affordable premium for every senior in the country of just $25 a month--not 50 percent; for every senior, therefore, in the country, just $25 a month, and no large, upfront deductible. Seniors would pay $10 for any generic drug up to $40 for more expensive brand name drugs. That is fair. After $4,000 in total dollars in out-of-pocket spending, all drug costs would be covered by--guess what--the Federal Government. Yes, medicine is expensive. Seniors are important. They are growing in size and in frailty. We are involved in their lives. Just as under Medicare, seniors pay the same amount regardless of where they live or how much their income is each year. Some people dispute that. It is the moral principle of a social contract. The other plans, again, as I say, in the spirit of not being unkind, mostly provide what they call ``estimates,'' or ``averages,'' like the word ``actuarially.'' It is one of those good words that makes you believe that everything is in good hands, except when the time comes for this to work it just doesn't quite work. Rather than real costs, seniors can compare. They talk about ``estimates,'' or ``averages.'' But if you look at the details, it is clear that every one of those plans has a higher premium, and large, upfront deductibles and higher copayments. That is a fact. For example, the premium under the House-passed bill is ``estimated'' at $33 a month. But the insurance companies can set it higher. Why? Because they are establishing the risk. They are setting the price. If they don't like the risk, the price goes up. If they are out in Westchester County, the price goes down. If they go to West Virginia, the price goes out of sight. So they don't come to West Virginia because they can't make any money. We are not blaming them for it. It is a fact of the way the free enterprise system works. Should West Virginia seniors, if anybody is interested, pay more than those in other States? The House bill also has a suggested $250 upfront deductible that seniors have to pay every year, although that could be set higher by these same insurance companies for the same reasons. Again, it is the benefit of how you do the mechanism which sends these benefits out. If you do it through the insurance company, they do not like risk. They don't like old, frail people. For those eligible to do it through the PBM, they do not have to make money, and they look at it differently. So, again, for costs between $2,000 and $3,700, seniors get nothing. That is a big gap in coverage. It means millions of seniors will pay thousands more under the House bill. I am about to conclude. Seniors have been waiting for more than a decade while we in Congress fight about all this. I want to repeat what I said when I started by saying some of my colleagues have suggested--my colleagues on my side of the aisle--that if we cannot achieve a fair and comprehensive benefit, then we should accept a weak and watered-down bill. And what is it that is getting us all worried? We all know we are going to have to get 60 votes. We are going to have to get 60 votes. None of the plans has enough votes right now, so we have to get 60 votes. So that is what leads you to a watered-down plan, just so we can go home in August and say that we have done something. We all get good benefits. Seniors all across America being left with the results of a watered-down prescription drug bill is not something that I am going to be a part of, I say to the Presiding Officer. We have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to do something extraordinarily meaningful for every senior and every American family. Anything else is, and should be, unacceptable to every single one of us. In the end, I want to enact a bill that guarantees West Virginians the same access to lifesaving and life-enhancing prescription drugs as people in other States. But the bill has to be right, it has to be fair, and it has to cover the right aspects. If it does not, we should not do it. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. We had an interesting and important discussion this afternoon for quite some time. I want to add a little bit to the discussion.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of a historical milestone in my State of West Virginia. July 13, 2002, marks the 100th year of incorporation for the town of Cedar Grove-- making it the oldest town in Kanawha County. I take this opportunity to congratulate Cedar Grove on its centennial. Cedar Grove is a small community nestled along the upper Kanawha Valley. Although only in existence for 100 years, the history of the town's site is much longer. The first settlement in the Kanawha Valley was on the site of what is now Cedar Grove. Walter Kelly first settled the area, then known as Kelly's Fort, in 1744. This was one of the first settlements started after the English bought what is now West Virginia from the Iroquois Indians. This site was also hotly contested land during the Civil War, when control of the Kanawha Valley went back and forth between the North and the South. From being the oldest settlement in the area to the oldest town, Cedar Grove has stood the test of time and remains strong to this day. It has been a historical keystone to the Kanawha Valley, and has greatly contributed to the richness of West Virginia culture and history. On behalf of all citizens from the Mountain State, I would like to once again commend Cedar Grove on its 100th birthday and ask that my distinguished colleagues join with me in recognizing its rich history.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, the corporate accounting scandals that have unfolded over the previous few months have caused incalculable damage to the American economy. Millions of people have been harmed, among them some of our most vulnerable citizens, including retirees on fixed incomes and families who have saved for years to educate their children or finally buy a home. Loss of confidence threatens our economy and diminishes hope for the millions who have lost their jobs in the last 18 months. And the cost of equity is rising, making it more difficult for the vast majority of honest and energetic entrepreneurs to turn their ideas into economic growth. This is not a bubble bursting; it is, in great measure, the result of a considerable diminution of regulation at the behest of powerful lobbies, over the objections of many people. Today, the Senate is debating the most effective way to restore balance between entrepreneurship and oversight, to ensure that corporate excesses do not again steal the savings of millions of people. The underlying Senate bill is based on accounting reforms and tougher enforcement. The Finance Committee is about to mark up its own bill dealing with diversification requirements, executive compensation, and notification and disclosure regarding 401(k) plans. I fully support Senator Sarbanes' bill and will support the Finance Committee proposal as well. And today I propose legislation that will complement my colleagues' efforts and help us move toward our goal of restoring confidence in American business and American businesspeople. Where legislation already under consideration focuses largely on oversight and punishment--two critical sides of the triangle--my bill attacks the incentives to cut corners or commit crimes in the arena of executive compensation. This legislation will protect workers and shareholders as Congress carefully sorts through the appropriate measures. Currently, Federal regulations permit a number of frankly sleazy accounting practices which allow corporations and their executives to take millions of dollars away from shareholders, creditors, and the Treasury, without any penalty at all. Some of the most obvious abuses aren't even crimes. My proposal will help to stop white collar crime before it is committed, by taking the common sense step of putting the lid on the cookie jar. This bill will do four things: 1. Right now, corporations may transfer funds to an executive's deferred compensation account, giving that executive certain access to the money but potentially also removing it from the reach of shareholders and creditors. But since it is termed ``deferred,'' the executive pays no taxes. Currently, Section 132 of the Revenue Code prevents regulators from cracking down on this practice. My legislation gives Treasury the authority to examine the constructive receipt doctrine and close loopholes that allow inappropriate deferral of taxation. It also gives Treasury the authority to act on situations where executive assets are supposedly subject to the claims of an employer's creditors, but in reality, are protected from legitimate claims. Either the individual must pay income tax, or the funds must be corporate assets subject to claims. They can't have it both ways. 2. Currently, corporations can give their senior executives massive loans, with no real expectation of repayment. These loans are effectively theft from the employees and shareholders, since they represent revenue given in compensation which will never be repaid, reinvested, or distributed as dividends. And they are theft from the Treasury as well; since they are accounted as loans, the recipient doesn't pay taxes on them. It's a tax-free performance bonus, often given--as we saw in the Adelphi and WorldCom cases--when the executive deserves more to be fired than to be paid. My legislation will make sure a loan is a loan: if a loan doesn't require security or have any enforceable repayment schedule, it's income and it will be taxed, just like the salaries of rank-and-file workers are taxed. 3. Right now, company employees may be unable to sell their stock while executives are dumping theirs and creating--as analysts take note and supply overwhelms demand--the kind of stock-price death spiral that took the life savings of thousands of Enron employees. Back in the early 1980's, Congress responded to the trend of corporations providing their executives with ``gold parachutes'' with a 20 percent excise tax on those payments. I believe that the excise tax on golden parachutes should also be applied to the sales of corporate stock by corporate executives during periods when regular employees of the company are not able to freely sell their stock in their company retirement plans. This would be a temporary, six-month provision, to deter corporate executives from taking advantage of the existing uncertainty as Congress considers other possible reforms to encourage more equitable treatment of rank-and-file employees and corporate executives. And it will be a bridge from the current structure to one in which employees have the same ability to sell their stock as insiders have. 4. Additionally, my bill will prevent corporate executives from getting a free ride when their corporation moves offshore for tax avoidance purposes. Under current law, if an American corporation dissolves and is then reincorporated in a foreign country, shareholders of the corporation are required to pay capital gains on the ``exchange'' of their stock in the ``old corporation'' for stock in the ``new corporation,'' even though they never actually sell their stock. Meanwhile, corporate executives, who have engineered the move offshore, are under no such obligation regarding stock options they receive as compensation. My bill would require executives to pay capital gains taxes on the ``exchange'' of their stock options when they move offshore to avoid taxation. I believe this provision will provide a much-needed disincentive to corporate executives seeking to avoid the reach of the IRS through corporate expatriation. I agree with all those who would increase oversight and penalties, but I say, let's also look at first causes--the executive compensation funds. That's where some of the greatest opportunities for inappropriate, unfair, and unethical practices are--practices that disadvantage average workers and investors and are undermining confidence in America's capital markets. And it's time for that to change. Finally, I am appalled at the problem of executives benefitting from what can only be considered excessive compensation arrangements in the waning days before bankruptcy of a failing corporation. I am looking for a way to prevent those arrangements in the final months before a corporation closes, and I hope to have a proposal ready for introduction soon.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, the corporate accounting scandals that have unfolded over the previous few months have caused incalculable damage to the American economy. Millions of people have been harmed, among them some of our most vulnerable citizens, including retirees on fixed incomes and families who have saved for years to educate their children or finally buy a home. Loss of confidence threatens our economy and diminishes hope for the millions who have lost their jobs in the last 18 months. And the cost of equity is rising, making it more difficult for the vast majority of honest and energetic entrepreneurs to turn their ideas into economic growth. This is not a bubble bursting; it is, in great measure, the result of a considerable diminution of regulation at the behest of powerful lobbies, over the objections of many people. Today, the Senate is debating the most effective way to restore balance between entrepreneurship and oversight, to ensure that corporate excesses do not again steal the savings of millions of people. The underlying Senate bill is based on accounting reforms and tougher enforcement. The Finance Committee is about to mark up its own bill dealing with diversification requirements, executive compensation, and notification and disclosure regarding 401(k) plans. I fully support Senator Sarbanes' bill and will support the Finance Committee proposal as well. And today I propose legislation that will complement my colleagues' efforts and help us move toward our goal of restoring confidence in American business and American businesspeople. Where legislation already under consideration focuses largely on oversight and punishment--two critical sides of the triangle--my bill attacks the incentives to cut corners or commit crimes in the arena of executive compensation. This legislation will protect workers and shareholders as Congress carefully sorts through the appropriate measures. Currently, Federal regulations permit a number of frankly sleazy accounting practices which allow corporations and their executives to take millions of dollars away from shareholders, creditors, and the Treasury, without any penalty at all. Some of the most obvious abuses aren't even crimes. My proposal will help to stop white collar crime before it is committed, by taking the common sense step of putting the lid on the cookie jar. This bill will do four things: 1. Right now, corporations may transfer funds to an executive's deferred compensation account, giving that executive certain access to the money but potentially also removing it from the reach of shareholders and creditors. But since it is termed ``deferred,'' the executive pays no taxes. Currently, Section 132 of the Revenue Code prevents regulators from cracking down on this practice. My legislation gives Treasury the authority to examine the constructive receipt doctrine and close loopholes that allow inappropriate deferral of taxation. It also gives Treasury the authority to act on situations where executive assets are supposedly subject to the claims of an employer's creditors, but in reality, are protected from legitimate claims. Either the individual must pay income tax, or the funds must be corporate assets subject to claims. They can't have it both ways. 2. Currently, corporations can give their senior executives massive loans, with no real expectation of repayment. These loans are effectively theft from the employees and shareholders, since they represent revenue given in compensation which will never be repaid, reinvested, or distributed as dividends. And they are theft from the Treasury as well; since they are accounted as loans, the recipient doesn't pay taxes on them. It's a tax-free performance bonus, often given--as we saw in the Adelphi and WorldCom cases--when the executive deserves more to be fired than to be paid. My legislation will make sure a loan is a loan: if a loan doesn't require security or have any enforceable repayment schedule, it's income and it will be taxed, just like the salaries of rank-and-file workers are taxed. 3. Right now, company employees may be unable to sell their stock while executives are dumping theirs and creating--as analysts take note and supply overwhelms demand--the kind of stock-price death spiral that took the life savings of thousands of Enron employees. Back in the early 1980's, Congress responded to the trend of corporations providing their executives with ``gold parachutes'' with a 20 percent excise tax on those payments. I believe that the excise tax on golden parachutes should also be applied to the sales of corporate stock by corporate executives during periods when regular employees of the company are not able to freely sell their stock in their company retirement plans. This would be a temporary, six-month provision, to deter corporate executives from taking advantage of the existing uncertainty as Congress considers other possible reforms to encourage more equitable treatment of rank-and-file employees and corporate executives. And it will be a bridge from the current structure to one in which employees have the same ability to sell their stock as insiders have. 4. Additionally, my bill will prevent corporate executives from getting a free ride when their corporation moves offshore for tax avoidance purposes. Under current law, if an American corporation dissolves and is then reincorporated in a foreign country, shareholders of the corporation are required to pay capital gains on the ``exchange'' of their stock in the ``old corporation'' for stock in the ``new corporation,'' even though they never actually sell their stock. Meanwhile, corporate executives, who have engineered the move offshore, are under no such obligation regarding stock options they receive as compensation. My bill would require executives to pay capital gains taxes on the ``exchange'' of their stock options when they move offshore to avoid taxation. I believe this provision will provide a much-needed disincentive to corporate executives seeking to avoid the reach of the IRS through corporate expatriation. I agree with all those who would increase oversight and penalties, but I say, let's also look at first causes--the executive compensation funds. That's where some of the greatest opportunities for inappropriate, unfair, and unethical practices are--practices that disadvantage average workers and investors and are undermining confidence in America's capital markets. And it's time for that to change. Finally, I am appalled at the problem of executives benefitting from what can only be considered excessive compensation arrangements in the waning days before bankruptcy of a failing corporation. I am looking for a way to prevent those arrangements in the final months before a corporation closes, and I hope to have a proposal ready for introduction soon.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing two bills aimed at addressing our national school infrastructure crisis. Schools across America have been allowed to fall into ill repair, and in some school districts, there is a serious need for new school construction. The Department of Education has found that the average age of a public school building in this country is 42 years old, an age when buildings tend to deteriorate. In 1995, the GAO found that the unmet need for school construction and renovation in the United States was a staggering $112 billion. When our schools are in poor condition, our children suffer and our Nation suffers. Studies have shown that children in well-kept schools perform better than children in deteriorating buildings. Certainly our children deserve the advantages that come with studying in a safe, clean, modern environment. The state of our schools is unacceptable, and it is our responsibility to do all we can to remedy this situation. These bills are the first pieces of my education agenda for 2002. In addition to investing in school construction, we must also invest in school leadership. Within the next few weeks, I intend to promote initiatives for school principals and incentives to recruit and retain teachers. School leadership will be essential in meeting the higher standards set by our new Leave No Child Behind Act, and principals play a pivotal role. I will be pushing legislation to ensure that we invest in leadership programs to help principals be bold leaders of reform. Also, I intend to introduce tax incentives to reward highly qualified teachers as a way to recruit and retain the best and the brightest for our classrooms. Building leadership among principals and teachers is as essential to quality education as modern schools. These efforts build on my ongoing education efforts on math and science and technology. In 1996, I was proud to sponsor the E-Rate program with Senator Snowe to connect our classroom to the Internet because our students must be connected to modern technology to gain the skills needed for the 21st century. This year, I am working hard to enact the National Math and Science Partnership Act to authorize almost a $1 billion a year for five years for the National Science Foundation to invest in promoting quality math and science education. The combination of these legislative initiatives should help provide the essential resources and leadership necessary to achieve our education goals. I can see the effects of deteriorating school buildings in my State of West Virginia. There alone, the need for school construction, renovation, and repair is rapidly approaching a staggering $2 billion over the next 10 years, a sum West Virginia cannot meet without assistance. West Virginia has, in the past, benefitted greatly from Federal programs designed to improve the quality of school buildings, and the money we've received has been put to excellent use. Funding made available by the Qualified Zone Academy Bond program, a program in which the Federal Government authorizes the states to sell school construction bonds and then pays the interest to the bond holders, has provided my state with over $4 million in bond funding since 1998. This money has been used to renovate science labs, install wireless computer equipment, remove asbestos, and provide modular classrooms, among many other valuable projects. Another program, a direct funding initiative included in the FY 2001 final budget agreement, has also been a great success in West Virginia and across the nation. Many schools in my State are unable to take advantage of school bondings because some local communities are so needy that they cannot afford even the low- or no-interest loans that program makes available. And when areas which are already disadvantaged are hit with natural disasters, such as the heartbreaking catastrophic flooding West Virginia has now suffered two years in a row, school districts cannot be expected to keep up with their infrastructure needs. The direct funding initiative in the 2001 budget made $1.2 billion in grants available for emergency school renovation and repair and technology improvements across America. West Virginia was fortunate to receive nearly $8 million in funding from the program, enabling our schools to replace roofs, fix faulty wiring and sewage systems, remove asbestos, and make themselves better prepared for fire emergencies. The success stories from these programs prove that we can make a real impact in the quality of schools in our nation. I am proud to introduce two bills today designed to build upon these past successes: the America's Better Classroom Act and the Building Our Children's Future Act. The America's Better Classroom Act is designed to expand and build upon the success of the Qualified Zone Academy Bond, or the QZAB program. It expands this program by $2.8 billion so even more school districts will be able to take advantage of the low-or no-interest school construction loans that it provides. QZAB's are aimed at schools in disadvantaged areas. To qualify, a school must be located in an empowerment zone, enterprise community, or 35 per cent of its students must be eligible for free or reduced lunch. In addition to expanding the QZAB program, the America's Better Classroom Act creates a new $22 billion bonding program designed to help all school districts meet their renovation needs. Funding to states will be allocated based on the Title I funding formula. In this way, many more school districts will have the opportunity to reap the benefits of no- or low-interest loans for school renovation and repair. This legislation is similar to a House bill sponsored by Congresswoman Nancy Johnson and Congressman Charlie Rangel. I look forward to working with the House colleagues on this crucial program. The second bill I introduce today is the Building Our Children's Future Act, a $5 billion initiative designed to help schools that, due to poverty, high growth, or unforseen disaster, are unable to meet their repair and renovation needs. Many districts that are facing these difficult challenges find themselves so strapped that they cannot even afford to pay back the principle on an interest-free loan. These areas need direct help, and this grant program provides it. The Building Our Children's Future Act gives each State funding based on Title I, with a priority to target funding to schools that have been damaged or destroyed by a natural disaster or are located in a high poverty or high growth areas, defined by the state. This makes certain that states have the flexibility to put the money where it is needed the most. The bill also recognizes that not all renovation needs are the same. In the 21st century, providing students and teachers with access to technology will be a critical part of keeping schools up-to-date. Likewise, we have made a commitment to assist states in covering the costs of special education, a commitment that will undoubtedly require renovation and construction to accommodate special needs. For this reason, the Building Our Children's Future Act sets aside a portion of its funds for states to make technology improvements and carry out programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Finally, the Building Our Children's Future Act also makes money available to schools with high Native American populations and schools located in outlying areas, so that no group will be left behind as we seek to remedy our school infrastructure crisis. I believe that America's Better Classroom Act and the Building Our Children's Future Act are important steps toward giving our children the learning environments they deserve. When our schools are in disrepair, we cannot expect our educational system to be any different. I hope you will join me in supporting these two bills and, in doing so, join me in supporting the futures of our children and our Nation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing two bills aimed at addressing our national school infrastructure crisis. Schools across America have been allowed to fall into ill repair, and in some school districts, there is a serious need for new school construction. The Department of Education has found that the average age of a public school building in this country is 42 years old, an age when buildings tend to deteriorate. In 1995, the GAO found that the unmet need for school construction and renovation in the United States was a staggering $112 billion. When our schools are in poor condition, our children suffer and our Nation suffers. Studies have shown that children in well-kept schools perform better than children in deteriorating buildings. Certainly our children deserve the advantages that come with studying in a safe, clean, modern environment. The state of our schools is unacceptable, and it is our responsibility to do all we can to remedy this situation. These bills are the first pieces of my education agenda for 2002. In addition to investing in school construction, we must also invest in school leadership. Within the next few weeks, I intend to promote initiatives for school principals and incentives to recruit and retain teachers. School leadership will be essential in meeting the higher standards set by our new Leave No Child Behind Act, and principals play a pivotal role. I will be pushing legislation to ensure that we invest in leadership programs to help principals be bold leaders of reform. Also, I intend to introduce tax incentives to reward highly qualified teachers as a way to recruit and retain the best and the brightest for our classrooms. Building leadership among principals and teachers is as essential to quality education as modern schools. These efforts build on my ongoing education efforts on math and science and technology. In 1996, I was proud to sponsor the E-Rate program with Senator Snowe to connect our classroom to the Internet because our students must be connected to modern technology to gain the skills needed for the 21st century. This year, I am working hard to enact the National Math and Science Partnership Act to authorize almost a $1 billion a year for five years for the National Science Foundation to invest in promoting quality math and science education. The combination of these legislative initiatives should help provide the essential resources and leadership necessary to achieve our education goals. I can see the effects of deteriorating school buildings in my State of West Virginia. There alone, the need for school construction, renovation, and repair is rapidly approaching a staggering $2 billion over the next 10 years, a sum West Virginia cannot meet without assistance. West Virginia has, in the past, benefitted greatly from Federal programs designed to improve the quality of school buildings, and the money we've received has been put to excellent use. Funding made available by the Qualified Zone Academy Bond program, a program in which the Federal Government authorizes the states to sell school construction bonds and then pays the interest to the bond holders, has provided my state with over $4 million in bond funding since 1998. This money has been used to renovate science labs, install wireless computer equipment, remove asbestos, and provide modular classrooms, among many other valuable projects. Another program, a direct funding initiative included in the FY 2001 final budget agreement, has also been a great success in West Virginia and across the nation. Many schools in my State are unable to take advantage of school bondings because some local communities are so needy that they cannot afford even the low- or no-interest loans that program makes available. And when areas which are already disadvantaged are hit with natural disasters, such as the heartbreaking catastrophic flooding West Virginia has now suffered two years in a row, school districts cannot be expected to keep up with their infrastructure needs. The direct funding initiative in the 2001 budget made $1.2 billion in grants available for emergency school renovation and repair and technology improvements across America. West Virginia was fortunate to receive nearly $8 million in funding from the program, enabling our schools to replace roofs, fix faulty wiring and sewage systems, remove asbestos, and make themselves better prepared for fire emergencies. The success stories from these programs prove that we can make a real impact in the quality of schools in our nation. I am proud to introduce two bills today designed to build upon these past successes: the America's Better Classroom Act and the Building Our Children's Future Act. The America's Better Classroom Act is designed to expand and build upon the success of the Qualified Zone Academy Bond, or the QZAB program. It expands this program by $2.8 billion so even more school districts will be able to take advantage of the low-or no-interest school construction loans that it provides. QZAB's are aimed at schools in disadvantaged areas. To qualify, a school must be located in an empowerment zone, enterprise community, or 35 per cent of its students must be eligible for free or reduced lunch. In addition to expanding the QZAB program, the America's Better Classroom Act creates a new $22 billion bonding program designed to help all school districts meet their renovation needs. Funding to states will be allocated based on the Title I funding formula. In this way, many more school districts will have the opportunity to reap the benefits of no- or low-interest loans for school renovation and repair. This legislation is similar to a House bill sponsored by Congresswoman Nancy Johnson and Congressman Charlie Rangel. I look forward to working with the House colleagues on this crucial program. The second bill I introduce today is the Building Our Children's Future Act, a $5 billion initiative designed to help schools that, due to poverty, high growth, or unforseen disaster, are unable to meet their repair and renovation needs. Many districts that are facing these difficult challenges find themselves so strapped that they cannot even afford to pay back the principle on an interest-free loan. These areas need direct help, and this grant program provides it. The Building Our Children's Future Act gives each State funding based on Title I, with a priority to target funding to schools that have been damaged or destroyed by a natural disaster or are located in a high poverty or high growth areas, defined by the state. This makes certain that states have the flexibility to put the money where it is needed the most. The bill also recognizes that not all renovation needs are the same. In the 21st century, providing students and teachers with access to technology will be a critical part of keeping schools up-to-date. Likewise, we have made a commitment to assist states in covering the costs of special education, a commitment that will undoubtedly require renovation and construction to accommodate special needs. For this reason, the Building Our Children's Future Act sets aside a portion of its funds for states to make technology improvements and carry out programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Finally, the Building Our Children's Future Act also makes money available to schools with high Native American populations and schools located in outlying areas, so that no group will be left behind as we seek to remedy our school infrastructure crisis. I believe that America's Better Classroom Act and the Building Our Children's Future Act are important steps toward giving our children the learning environments they deserve. When our schools are in disrepair, we cannot expect our educational system to be any different. I hope you will join me in supporting these two bills and, in doing so, join me in supporting the futures of our children and our Nation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, coalminers in this country have risked their lives and limbs, making enormous sacrifices to fuel our nation. We owe them the respect and benefits they have earned. Sadly, these miners' families are being abandoned in their time of greatest need: when they are coping with the devastating loss of a loved one from black lung disease. Current policy arbitrarily forces some widows of black lung victims to wade through bureaucracy to prove and reprove their spouse's illness, and this simply is not right. The Black Lung Disability Trust Fund was created to assist miners who were terminated prior to 1970, or who worked in mines where no mine operator can be assigned health care liabilities. The Black Lung Benefits Act, BLBA, was amended in 1981 to strengthen the finances of the Trust Fund, but it made it extremely difficult for those suffering from black lung to qualify for benefits. Currently, there are two very different standards governing entitlement to benefits for the spouses of deceased black lung victims. In the event that a Trust Fund beneficiary died prior to January 1, 1982, benefits rightly continue uninterrupted to the surviving spouse. But if the beneficiary died or dies after January 1, 1982, the surviving spouse must file a new claim to benefits and must prove that the miner was already deemed eligible to receive benefits. This issue affects more than 11,000 West Virginia retirees and their survivors, as well as another 51,000 black lung families across the country. I have introduced legislation that would begin to rectify the failures of the Black Lung Benefits Act. It is a companion to legislation Representative Rahall introduced in the House. The Black Lung Benefits Survivors Equity Act of 2002 would give benefits to widows of black lung victims, benefits that these women rightfully deserve. Linda Chapman, one very strong and courageous woman from Spencer, WV, tragically lost her husband, Carson, to black lung disease last January. On top of this tragedy, she was denied survivor benefits simply because of the BLBA's double standards. But rather than giving up, Linda stood up. On behalf of the surviving widows of black lung victims, she walked several hundred miles from Charleston, WV, to Washington, DC, to generate public interest and to get the attention of lawmakers as well. I applaud Mrs. Chapman's efforts, and was pleased to meet her when she arrived in Washington. I hope this Senate will act quickly to remedy this problem for Mrs. Chapman and other black lung widows like her. After all that they have endured, these women should not have to fight against bureaucracy simply to obtain the survivors' benefits due them. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, coalminers in this country have risked their lives and limbs, making enormous sacrifices to fuel our nation. We owe them the respect and benefits they have earned. Sadly, these miners' families are being abandoned in their time of greatest need: when they are coping with the devastating loss of a loved one from black lung disease. Current policy arbitrarily forces some widows of black lung victims to wade through bureaucracy to prove and reprove their spouse's illness, and this simply is not right. The Black Lung Disability Trust Fund was created to assist miners who were terminated prior to 1970, or who worked in mines where no mine operator can be assigned health care liabilities. The Black Lung Benefits Act, BLBA, was amended in 1981 to strengthen the finances of the Trust Fund, but it made it extremely difficult for those suffering from black lung to qualify for benefits. Currently, there are two very different standards governing entitlement to benefits for the spouses of deceased black lung victims. In the event that a Trust Fund beneficiary died prior to January 1, 1982, benefits rightly continue uninterrupted to the surviving spouse. But if the beneficiary died or dies after January 1, 1982, the surviving spouse must file a new claim to benefits and must prove that the miner was already deemed eligible to receive benefits. This issue affects more than 11,000 West Virginia retirees and their survivors, as well as another 51,000 black lung families across the country. I have introduced legislation that would begin to rectify the failures of the Black Lung Benefits Act. It is a companion to legislation Representative Rahall introduced in the House. The Black Lung Benefits Survivors Equity Act of 2002 would give benefits to widows of black lung victims, benefits that these women rightfully deserve. Linda Chapman, one very strong and courageous woman from Spencer, WV, tragically lost her husband, Carson, to black lung disease last January. On top of this tragedy, she was denied survivor benefits simply because of the BLBA's double standards. But rather than giving up, Linda stood up. On behalf of the surviving widows of black lung victims, she walked several hundred miles from Charleston, WV, to Washington, DC, to generate public interest and to get the attention of lawmakers as well. I applaud Mrs. Chapman's efforts, and was pleased to meet her when she arrived in Washington. I hope this Senate will act quickly to remedy this problem for Mrs. Chapman and other black lung widows like her. After all that they have endured, these women should not have to fight against bureaucracy simply to obtain the survivors' benefits due them. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that affects all of our lives. This bill gets to the heart of an issue that Congress has been talking about for years, access to prescription drugs. As the name implies, the Consumer Access to Prescription Drugs Improvement Act of 2002 seeks to improve access to prescription drugs for every person who needs medication. Today, people rely on prescription drugs for several different reasons. For some people, prescription drugs make life more comfortable. Some would not survive without them. Prescription drugs have become an intricate part of modern medicine, replacing procedures that once required an inpatient stay. Ailments that once could not be treated can now be cured with a little pill. The innovation that has been displayed is amazing and must continue. The problem, however, is that prescription drug manufacturers have been distorting the market. Drug manufacturers are exploiting loopholes in existing laws to further extend their monopolies and keep generic drugs off the market. The result, after years of paying monopoly prices, consumers continue to be cheated out of cost-effective alternatives. We've all heard the horror stories of people going without their medications, splitting pills, or making the choice between food and drugs. However, the consequences of actions taken by drug manufacturers are actually more global. They are taking a terrible toll on State budgets, forcing Medicaid to severely scale back their coverage of our most needed population. They are causing employer health care premiums to go through the roof. These pressures will cause the number of uninsured to increase and will ultimately limit access to health care. The group that suffers the most due to drug cost growth is seniors. Millions of seniors have no drug coverage today. Over the past five years, the 50 prescription drugs most commonly used by seniors have increased in price by nearly twice the rate of inflation. In fact, over 25 percent of these drugs increased in price by three or more times the rate of inflation over that time period. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average retail prescription price for brand name drugs has increased more than 58 percent in 10 years. Brandeis University recently released a report on this issue. The major conclusion of the report is that greater and appropriate use of generic medications can achieve $50-$100 billion in savings for any new Medicare drug benefit. This legislation will make a Medicare drug benefit affordable and sustainable into the future. Senators should be aware that I plan to offer this legislation as an amendment to any Medicare prescription drug benefit that the Senate considers. This legislation will stop pharmaceutical companies from circumventing the law and open the door to competition so that every consumer from West Virginia to California has access to reasonably priced prescription drugs. However, this legislation will also go further. It will provide crucial information to physicians, consumers, and health care purchasers about the cost-effective generics that are equivalent to brand names. According to the Federal Trade Commission, generic drugs typically cost 25 percent less than brand-name drugs when they first enter the market. After two years, the price difference grows to 60 percent. Every patient should have access to the drug prescribed by their doctor, but if there is a drug out there that is equivalent to the brand name but will cost you half as much, don't you want your physician to know about it? This bill will shine a spotlight on the real costs and the effects of issues we hear so much about, direct-to-consumer advertising, drug detailing, and sampling. We can no longer afford to talk about these issues in broad, hypothetical terms. Congress and the public need to understand these issues better so that we can be more prudent purchasers. This legislation will create the correct incentives, to innovate rather than litigate. Finally, this legislation will expand access to drugs under existing programs which are so crucial to those who rely on them. This legislation will expand Medicare's current drug benefit to include all cancer drugs, regardless of the method by which they are administered. It will allow public hospitals access to the drug prices they need to be able to continue in their mission to provide care to our neediest citizens. It will help states with their drug utilization review programs which we all know are cost effective. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. My efforts are supported by the Service Employees International Union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the AFL-CIO, Families USA, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, and Representative Waxman, the author of the original legislation. Representative Waxman stated: Now more than ever, as the cost of prescription drugs has skyrocketed, access to low-cost generics is essential. At a time when the brand-name companies have few innovative products in their pipelines, we are seeing a disturbing trend: a growing number of companies are choosing to protect their profits through legal maneuvers to delay generic competition on their existing products. The price of this anti-competitive behavior to our nation's health care bill and to the health of Americans is shockingly high. It is time that Congress acted to stop unnecessary delays in the marketing of generic drugs. The bill that Senator Rockefeller is introducing today makes a real contribution to the effort to combat these problems. This legislation is a commonsense step we can take to increase access to prescription drugs for all consumers. I urge Congress to consider and pass this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that affects all of our lives. This bill gets to the heart of an issue that Congress has been talking about for years, access to prescription drugs. As the name implies, the Consumer Access to Prescription Drugs Improvement Act of 2002 seeks to improve access to prescription drugs for every person who needs medication. Today, people rely on prescription drugs for several different reasons. For some people, prescription drugs make life more comfortable. Some would not survive without them. Prescription drugs have become an intricate part of modern medicine, replacing procedures that once required an inpatient stay. Ailments that once could not be treated can now be cured with a little pill. The innovation that has been displayed is amazing and must continue. The problem, however, is that prescription drug manufacturers have been distorting the market. Drug manufacturers are exploiting loopholes in existing laws to further extend their monopolies and keep generic drugs off the market. The result, after years of paying monopoly prices, consumers continue to be cheated out of cost-effective alternatives. We've all heard the horror stories of people going without their medications, splitting pills, or making the choice between food and drugs. However, the consequences of actions taken by drug manufacturers are actually more global. They are taking a terrible toll on State budgets, forcing Medicaid to severely scale back their coverage of our most needed population. They are causing employer health care premiums to go through the roof. These pressures will cause the number of uninsured to increase and will ultimately limit access to health care. The group that suffers the most due to drug cost growth is seniors. Millions of seniors have no drug coverage today. Over the past five years, the 50 prescription drugs most commonly used by seniors have increased in price by nearly twice the rate of inflation. In fact, over 25 percent of these drugs increased in price by three or more times the rate of inflation over that time period. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average retail prescription price for brand name drugs has increased more than 58 percent in 10 years. Brandeis University recently released a report on this issue. The major conclusion of the report is that greater and appropriate use of generic medications can achieve $50-$100 billion in savings for any new Medicare drug benefit. This legislation will make a Medicare drug benefit affordable and sustainable into the future. Senators should be aware that I plan to offer this legislation as an amendment to any Medicare prescription drug benefit that the Senate considers. This legislation will stop pharmaceutical companies from circumventing the law and open the door to competition so that every consumer from West Virginia to California has access to reasonably priced prescription drugs. However, this legislation will also go further. It will provide crucial information to physicians, consumers, and health care purchasers about the cost-effective generics that are equivalent to brand names. According to the Federal Trade Commission, generic drugs typically cost 25 percent less than brand-name drugs when they first enter the market. After two years, the price difference grows to 60 percent. Every patient should have access to the drug prescribed by their doctor, but if there is a drug out there that is equivalent to the brand name but will cost you half as much, don't you want your physician to know about it? This bill will shine a spotlight on the real costs and the effects of issues we hear so much about, direct-to-consumer advertising, drug detailing, and sampling. We can no longer afford to talk about these issues in broad, hypothetical terms. Congress and the public need to understand these issues better so that we can be more prudent purchasers. This legislation will create the correct incentives, to innovate rather than litigate. Finally, this legislation will expand access to drugs under existing programs which are so crucial to those who rely on them. This legislation will expand Medicare's current drug benefit to include all cancer drugs, regardless of the method by which they are administered. It will allow public hospitals access to the drug prices they need to be able to continue in their mission to provide care to our neediest citizens. It will help states with their drug utilization review programs which we all know are cost effective. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. My efforts are supported by the Service Employees International Union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the AFL-CIO, Families USA, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, and Representative Waxman, the author of the original legislation. Representative Waxman stated: Now more than ever, as the cost of prescription drugs has skyrocketed, access to low-cost generics is essential. At a time when the brand-name companies have few innovative products in their pipelines, we are seeing a disturbing trend: a growing number of companies are choosing to protect their profits through legal maneuvers to delay generic competition on their existing products. The price of this anti-competitive behavior to our nation's health care bill and to the health of Americans is shockingly high. It is time that Congress acted to stop unnecessary delays in the marketing of generic drugs. The bill that Senator Rockefeller is introducing today makes a real contribution to the effort to combat these problems. This legislation is a commonsense step we can take to increase access to prescription drugs for all consumers. I urge Congress to consider and pass this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce ``A First Step to Long-Term Care Act of 2002.'' This is a targeted long-term care package--a first step in the direction of long-term care reform. This legislation is about protecting assets, expanding home care, and modestly expanding Medicare to address the need for adult day health care. Government coverage for nursing home care operates primarily, and most substantially, through the Medicaid program the safety net for the poor. Despite what many Americans believe or hope, Medicare is not designed or financed to cover long-term care needs. Medicare is, in fact, the universal health care program for the elderly, which covers all health care needs, save prescription drugs and long-term care. Just this morning, I testified before the Senate Special Committee on Aging about the need to find real solutions to attack the issue of long-term care coverage. This legislation is a step in that direction. Today, the home care benefit under Medicare offers skilled care and possibly home health aides on a part-time or intermittent basis. Beneficiaries also must be confined to the home, despite the fact that many could leave the home with assistance. ``A First Step to Long-Term Care Reform'' retains the requirement that leaving the home requires a considerable and taxing effort, but it obviates the difficult choice that patients face: either be imprisoned in their home or risk losing Medicare coverage. We also need to begin to provide options to nursing home care under the Medicare benefit, such as the payment for adult day health care. This is something Senator Santorum has been working on as well. Doing so would provide a measure of respite and will reduce the bias towards institutionalizing those who can, with the right circumstances--stay at home. Giving states relief from the mandate that they must pursue and sell- off the estates of Medicaid beneficiaries is another first step. In the short-term, we can provide states with the option of whether or not to do so. West Virginia is one State, in particular, which is seeking relief from this harsh and unnecessary mandate. I recognize Congressman Nick Rahall, my good friend and colleague from West Virginia, for his leadership on this issue. Mr. President, there are few issues that are as challenging as providing a solution for the long-term care problem, but we simply must have the courage to find solutions. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce ``A First Step to Long-Term Care Act of 2002.'' This is a targeted long-term care package--a first step in the direction of long-term care reform. This legislation is about protecting assets, expanding home care, and modestly expanding Medicare to address the need for adult day health care. Government coverage for nursing home care operates primarily, and most substantially, through the Medicaid program the safety net for the poor. Despite what many Americans believe or hope, Medicare is not designed or financed to cover long-term care needs. Medicare is, in fact, the universal health care program for the elderly, which covers all health care needs, save prescription drugs and long-term care. Just this morning, I testified before the Senate Special Committee on Aging about the need to find real solutions to attack the issue of long-term care coverage. This legislation is a step in that direction. Today, the home care benefit under Medicare offers skilled care and possibly home health aides on a part-time or intermittent basis. Beneficiaries also must be confined to the home, despite the fact that many could leave the home with assistance. ``A First Step to Long-Term Care Reform'' retains the requirement that leaving the home requires a considerable and taxing effort, but it obviates the difficult choice that patients face: either be imprisoned in their home or risk losing Medicare coverage. We also need to begin to provide options to nursing home care under the Medicare benefit, such as the payment for adult day health care. This is something Senator Santorum has been working on as well. Doing so would provide a measure of respite and will reduce the bias towards institutionalizing those who can, with the right circumstances--stay at home. Giving states relief from the mandate that they must pursue and sell- off the estates of Medicaid beneficiaries is another first step. In the short-term, we can provide states with the option of whether or not to do so. West Virginia is one State, in particular, which is seeking relief from this harsh and unnecessary mandate. I recognize Congressman Nick Rahall, my good friend and colleague from West Virginia, for his leadership on this issue. Mr. President, there are few issues that are as challenging as providing a solution for the long-term care problem, but we simply must have the courage to find solutions. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.